- Decent optics for the money
- Very fast AF
- Aperture ring, so it works on almost any Nikon (D)SLR ever made.
- Nothing moves externally during AF

Cons:

- Build quality is merely acceptable
- Completely loose focus ring
- Lot of fringing around highlights
- Weird pointy shape of defocused light sources
- 77mm filter ring makes this lens take up a lot of space in your bag
- Same holds for the MASSIVE lens hood
- Price for a new one is too high

Used on D700. I paid EUR 275 second-hand for an absolutely mint one.

This is the more affordable brethren of the F/2.8 17-35 AF-S.

Build quality is not very good. I think it's quite solid in real terms, but it feels very plasticy. The focus ring is completely undamped. It's plastic all the way. Build quality wise, it's about the same as the 18-70 DX lens: nothing real bad, but mounted on the solid D700 the difference in build quality between lens and camera automatically grabs your attention. Having it used quite a lot in sometimes very adverse conditions, it still looks and works as if it were new. So build quality might actually be better than it appears. It feels a little heavier than you might think.

It's at its shortest at 30mm, extending just 2mms towards the 35mm setting and about 10mms towards the wide end. The zoom ring is smooth but very lightly damped. No zoom creep, not even if you try.

It focuses insanely fast, instantly, AF-S fast. Really. It also focuses close (33cm, just over 1 ft). From closest to infinity is less than a 90 degree turn, and only two-and-a-bit turns for the in-camera screwdriver.

Wide-open image quality is definitely usable, but not great. Stopped-down to F/5.6 and beyond it's very good - not significantly worse than its big brother the 17-35 AF-S (I tried). The wide end is always a little better than the 35mm end. Corner softness is an issue, but only in the very extreme FX corners, and goes away completely by F/8.

It has some barrel distortion at 18mm, which eases out to 35mm where it is essentially distortion free. As with most wide-angle zooms the distortion is not easily corrected; some minor waviness always remains.

It has a surprisingly low amount of chromatic aberration. However, blooming (fringing) around light sources in night shots is quite severe, especially halfway from the center and beyond. From F/8 this largely disappears. Wide-open it has lots of coma at the shortest focal lengths, rendering light sources in the frame as weird pizza-slice-shaped objects pointing towards the center. At normal viewing distances/magnifications no one would ever notice though. On slide film, projected HUGE (6x4m) with a Zeiss projector I can see it, because I know where to look. Others don't.

It is very insusceptible to flaring and ghosting, so I always leave the humongous lens hood at home.

Conclusion: the new price of around 700 EUR/$ is too high. Stopped-down this lens is capable of producing really excellent results. For landscape photography this is a viable lightweight, lower-cost alternative to the 17-35. When you need wider apertures this lens just doesn't entirey cut it, although it's never bad. If your mainstay will be around 35mms, look somewhere else. Build quality is a little lacking. Because of its hood and 77mm filter ring this lens takes up a lot of space in your bag.

Nov 28, 2010

svx94Offline[ X ]

Registered: Mar 25, 2005Location: CanadaPosts: 657

Review Date: Aug 16, 2008

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9

Pros:

Very light, good IQ

Cons:

loose lens hood, so-so build.

I was looking at Nikon's new bodies for a while, but didn't jump in because of lens choices. I heard about good things about this lens, and found a NEW one at a good price, which triggered me to buy it with a D700...

I have the Canon EF-S 10-22, which is an excellent lens on my 20D. Comparing the 18-35 with the Canon, it is at least a match in all aspect, including IQ, build, focus, etc. The Nikon has the lens hood included, where the Canon is an extra. The Nikon is also a little smaller in size.

I took some test shots for typical landscape and indoor situation. The distortion seems well controlled and little better than the 10-22 (which is excellent already). Color, contrast are at least as good as the 10-22. I took some shots at F-3.5, 11 and 22. At F11, it produce the best sharpness, but at F22, it is not bad at all. F3.5 show a little edge softness (far corner).

I can afford the 14-24, but several aspects turned me off:
1. Weight and size - because I only use ultra-wide once a while, I don't want to carry a big/heavy one;
2. I need c-pl, ND or G-ND for landscape, the 14-24 won't take regular filters;
3. Price, of course.

In general, I like the 18-35mm a lot. Because it is very light, it may get some real use

Cheers!

Aug 16, 2008

veromanOfflineBuy and Sell: On

Registered: Aug 19, 2005Location: United StatesPosts: 4206

Review Date: Mar 26, 2008

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10

Pros:

• Sharp
• Quick
• Compact
• Light
• Nicely built

Cons:

I purchased only two lenses when I first bought my D2x. One was the remarkable f/2.8 35-70. The other was this one, the 18-35 f/3.5-4.5.

I read many reviews and was hesitant to purchase it at first. Some of the reviews had severely downgraded the lens' performance wide open at any focal length, but particularly at the extremes. Many cited Tamron's 17-35 f/2.8-4 as a better buy. Most thought the lens' border performance was, well, downright bad.

I decided I wanted to put a Nikon on my Nikon, so I bought it anyway. I have no regrets. This lens has proved itself to be a stellar performer under 99% of the shooting conditions I find myself in. I have not found it to be significantly worse wide open compared to stopped down a bit. I do not find the build to be "less than average," and I have seen few instances of ghosting, flare, CA, etc. I have no complaints about the border sharpness.

The 18-35 is simply an excellent lens that I think is an excellent value for the money. It could be the sample-to-sample variations of this particular lens are just more extreme than usual; hence, the nature of some of the reviews.

Mar 26, 2008

wb4hOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 18, 2008Location: United StatesPosts: 20

Review Date: Feb 26, 2008

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $279.00
| Rating: 9

Pros:

This lens is sharp on my D200. and impressive on my N80.

Cons:

Why Nikon would put a huge filter adapter on this compact lens is beyond me.

Bought this lens from Sammy's and is just what I needed to complement my others. If you don't have a boat load of money to spend on glass this is a must have for DX or FX. Focus is quick and sharp.

Feb 26, 2008

RipoliniOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 5, 2005Location: ItalyPosts: 477

Review Date: Nov 9, 2007

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8

Pros:

Cheap, lightweight, excellent image quality on both film and DX cameras from f/5.6 onwards. Good behavior in counterlight shots (negligible flare, very few ghosts).

Cons:

Color rendition slightly lower than the AF 20-35/2.8 I owned before I swapped it for this wider zoom. Distorsion at the wide end (fixable by post-processing). Built construction is not as good as pro lenses, however this is the price to be paid for compactness and low weight.

I have used extensively this lens on film bodies. Now I use it on my D200 and it performs even better. CA is very well corrected (bettrer than my AF-S 105/2.8 VR), vignetting on DX is negligible, corner sharpness on DX is very good even at wide apertures.
I performed a side by side comparison with the AF ED 12-24/4 DX at same focal lengths and on both film (F100) and digital (D100) cameras.
You can see the full test here:http://xoomer.alice.it/ripolini/12-24%20vs%2018-35.htm

The 18-35 won the game!

Nov 9, 2007

Peter JonesOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 28, 2007Location: AustraliaPosts: 0

Review Date: Jan 28, 2007

Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7

Pros:

convenience, clarity

Cons:

vignetting - unacceptable

received the lens yesterday after a 3 week wait - couldn't wait to play with it. Took a couple of quick snaps to ensure everything was working. Put them on the screen and almost fainted when I saw how bad the vignetting is especially at 200mm. Very noticeable against light background eg skies.

I've already complained to where I bought it and will provide them with a range of samples at various settings. I think this lens will be going back. Shame I held high hopes for it. I shoot a lot of loutdoors so this is a major disappointment for me and I don't feel like spending all my nights in Photoshop.

Maybe I just got a dud

Jan 28, 2007

phiggysOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Apr 7, 2004Location: United KingdomPosts: 25

Review Date: Dec 4, 2005

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 10

Pros:

This has been a excellent lens to have in my bag.
Pin sharp images that I have got with this lens convinced me to part with a number of fixed prime lenses that took up space in my bag.
Pin sharp,lightweight,build quality.

Cons:

None yet.

Dec 4, 2005

camerapapiOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 15, 2002Location: United StatesPosts: 4896

Review Date: Jun 28, 2005

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9

Pros:

sharp, light weight, IF, excellent for film cameras

Cons:

Mostly plastics but that makes it light. As to be expected barrel distortion at 18mm, easily fixed with software.

I picked this one used but in excellent shape. It offers that kind of perspective only obtainable with extreme wide angle lenses.
Images are very sharp at f8, through f16. Other stops usable too.
It is a slow lens great for sceneries but too slow for low light work. That does not bother me because I use it for landscape photography and when the light levels are low outdoors I simply go with my tripod.
In my opinion, an excellent lens for the money.

Jun 28, 2005

subgeniusOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 17, 2005Location: United StatesPosts: 239

Review Date: Jun 14, 2005

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $499.00
| Rating: 10

Pros:

Very sharp, excellent color and contrast. Have a Nikkor 24mm that can't stand up to the 18-35 at the same focal length.

Cons:

AF a little slow, hard to find anything wrong with this lens.

I've compared this lens to the 17-35mm on the D70 and was hard pressed to see the difference in the overall range. If you buy the 17-35, your giving away the extra $900-1000 that you could have saved buying this lens.

Jun 14, 2005

mcordin73OfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 31, 2005Location: United StatesPosts: 92

Review Date: Feb 7, 2005

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $325.00
| Rating: 8

Pros:

Fun, snappy, useful lens - good to great image quality, nice price. This is an easy choice over the very expensive 2.8 17-35mm. I have a feeling that this lens would work for 99% of the time for almost any photographer.

Cons:

I too have noticed the Barrel Distortion at 18mm. You can't really complain about vari-aperatures - you know where to find the 2.8 constant.

If you don't have a bag of cash laying around then buy this lens!!! If money isn't a problem then go for the faster 2.8mm.

Good lens but it is soft wide open, and is a slowish f/3.5. Noisy AF too. buy this if you cant afford the 17-35 2.8

daniel

Dec 3, 2004

NikonartOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Apr 12, 2004Location: United StatesPosts: 19

Review Date: Apr 22, 2004

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $290.00
| Rating: 8

Pros:

It's not the $1500 17-35 f/2.8, but ED glass and a fairly quick IF AF is a good start. Add the very usable focal range of 18~35 and the 77mm filter size, and this lightweight marvel is hard to pass up on a D100 or D70. Images are very good at 35mm and good at 24mm.

Cons:

Barrel distortion at widest end [18mm] is quite noticeable.

Apr 22, 2004

skyviewOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 3, 2004Location: United StatesPosts: 331

Review Date: Feb 9, 2004

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 10

Pros:

Absolutely amazed with the images from this lens. I too, use it with the D100 and have not seen any problems at the edges. I find myself trying to find a reason to use this lens, seems to work better than the 35-70mm f2.8 I also have.

Cons:

Feb 9, 2004

MoxieMikeOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 17, 2002Location: United StatesPosts: 181

Review Date: Jan 18, 2004

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $449.00
| Rating: 10

Pros:

It's light, the build quality is good, and of course, the image quality is excellent. Absolutely amazing on my D100..stellar contrasty & saturated images, and SHARP.

Cons:

Sometimes can be slow focusing, and it's not as "amazing" on my newly purchased "old" F3hp in the corners.

The ED glass, combined with the 18-35 focal range made this lens a must for me when I got my D100. Giving me a 28-52 zoom range allowed me to get a nice wide image, and when I started processing the images, I was blown away with the quality. There's some light fall off and softness in the extreme corners on my old F3, but it's perfect on the D100 and aside from some distortions, is every bit as good (on the D100) as the more expensive and heavy 17-35 f2.8.

Jan 18, 2004

Andy BiggsOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Sep 16, 2002Location: United StatesPosts: 1633

Review Date: Jun 2, 2003

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8

Pros:

lightweight, ED glass

Cons:

slow focusing, soft corners

Back in my Nikon days, I owned and used this lens for my back country camping trips. I loved the light weight, combined with an N80 body and Gitzo 1127 tripod. Not the best lens for photojournalism-type work, but for landscapes it was awesome.